ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS
For the fiscal year ending June 30

1,IBKARY OF CONGRESS / WASHINGTON / 1973

 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 10-35017
ISSN 0090-2845Key title: Annual report of the Register of Copyrights

This report is reprinted from the

Annual Report of the Librarian o f Congress
for the fiscal year ending June 30,1972
 Contents
The Copyright Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
General Revision of the Copyright Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Copyright for Sound Recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
New Register of CopyrightsNamed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Steps Toward Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Year's Copyright Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Official Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Copyright Contributions to the Library of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Legislative Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judicial Developinents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Notice of Copyright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Ownership and Transfer of Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Infringement and Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Unfair Competition and Other Theories of Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
International Copyright Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Tables:

International Copyright Relations of the United States as of June 30. I972 . . . . . . . . 13

Registration by Subject Matter Class. Fiscal Years 1968-72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Number of Articles Deposited. Fiscal Years 1968-72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
N u m b e r of ArticlesTransferred t o Other Departments of the Library of Congress . . . . . 16
G r o s s Cash Receipts. Fees. and Registrations. Fiscal Years 1968-72 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Summary of Copyright Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 >>
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts . . ..
 Report to the Libraria~lof Co?zgress
THE COPYRIGHT
Fiscal 1972 was a year of renewed ]lope and
sevel-al important developments in copy right.
H o p e for passage of the copyright revision bill was
spurred by assurances of further action i r ~the next
Congress. A significant enactment added a new
class o f copyl-ightablc material-sound recordings--
t o the present law. Revisions of the llniversal
Copyright Convention and of the Berne Conven-
tion were adopted at diplomatic conferences in
Paris. A new register o f copyrights was nan~ed.
A n d strides were taken toward greater efficiency
a n d , ultimately, autorliation of some of the main
o p e r a t i o ~ l sof the Copyright Office.
GENERAL REVISION OF THE COPYRIGHT LAW
T h e bill for the general revision of the copyright
law, which was passed by the liouse o f Kepresen-
tatives five years ago and has hecn pending in tlie
S c n a t e sincc then, received a boost when Senaluv
J o h n L. McClellan, chairman o r tlie Subcommittcc
on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights of the
S c n a t e Judiciary Co~nnlittee, indicated 011 Ju~re
20, 1972, that he knew of no reason why the Sub-
cornmittec could not promptly reporl a revised bill
in t h e next Congress. Scnator Mdlellan made tile
statement o n introducing a new rneasurc, S.J. I<es.
247, t o extend for two more years the duration of
certain renewed copyrights. He pointed out that
progress by the Congress on the revision bill has
b e e n delayed by the copyrigllt and rel(ulali(.)ll
lalnifications of the cable television controvcny
p e n d i n g before the Federal Corn~rrunicatiolls
Colnmission, but that conipletion of tlie conimis.
by the Register of Copyrights
OFFICE
sion's proceedings and its rccelll adoption of new
rules Iiad opened the way for tile copyright bill.
He stated that a rnodilied version o f the bill would
be introduced ill the 03d Congress and that he
intended to bring the bill to the floor of the
Senate at the earliest feasiblc time.
Copyrigl~tfor Soolid Itccording
On October 15. 107 I . l'reside~it Kicliard M. Nix011
approved a Ineasure urnending the copyright law
by ~iiakingplrblishcd sound recordings copyright-
able 1111dercertain conditions, and by providing
additional sanctions for infringernent---including
criminal proseclltion irl certain cases-where copy-
righted musical wol-ks are unlawfi~lly used on
sourrd recclrdi~igs.
By the ternls o f this enactment, Public Law
02-140, a soulid recol-ding may be suhject to statu-
tory copyrig111 prtrlectio~i il' the sounds co~isti-
[lrti~lgthe recording as ~)ublishedwere first fixed
on or after Fchr.cr:t~y 15, 1072, ant1 if the so~lnd
rccordirrg is puldislied wit11 a notice of copy~iglit
in [lie fornr prcscribcd by llic law. This act, wliose
~~rovisionswcrc t;lke~l in substance fiom the
ge~~erul rCvisioli hill, was c11;lcted t o c o r ~ ~ h athe t
~,iclcsj)reatI~ I I Isyhlc~~~:tlic
~ piriicy tl~at IIEIO seri-
ously ,jeol):~rdii.ctl tlic I I I ; I I . f~o~r IIcpiiin13tc tapes
iu~ddiscs. I t I I ~ O V ~ C I C S (i,r t 1 . 1 ~1>rotccti011ot' s(.,u~ld
rccor(111igs: I ~ : I ~ Ilrcir
I I S ~L I I I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I (Ol ~I ~~A~ C~ l~ i c : ~ t i < ~ ~ r
and tlistrih~ltiorl I O Ilic ~)lrblic.1 o I)c s ~ ~ l ! j c cto t
prot~ciio11~rlider lliis C ~ I ~ I C I Ithe I ~ ~~cIc~o Ir d. ~ n g
~ntist Iiavc hcen pu1)lished will1 a specit~lf'or~nof
copyrigllt ~nolic,e.cii~isisling13( the sy~ilbolCj!. the

year of its first publication, and the name of the
copyright owner of the sound recording.
This measure, which adds a new category of
copyrightable material to the statute for the first
time in half a century, required considerable
preparation by the Copyright Office. The Regula-
tions of the Copyright Office were amended; a
new application, Form N, was printed and copies
distributed for use in making registrations; printed
information circulars and announcements were
issued; and physical facilities for the handling and
examination of the applications and deposits were
prepared.
The new law became effective on February 15,
1972. During the remainder of the fiscal year,
registrations were made for 1,141 sound record-
ings, and it is expected that an appreciably larger
number will be registered in the next fiscal year.
Among the inquiries and legal problems generated
by the law are the scope of the sound recording
copyright, the relationship of that copyright to the
underlying musical, literary, or dramatic work, and
the copyrightability of various "new versions" of
previous recordings.
When registration has been made and processing
in the Copyright Office completed, the deposit
copies of the recordings are transferred to other
departments of the Library of Congress, where
they are available for addition to the collections.
NEW REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS NAMED
Abraham L. Kaminstein retired as register of copy-
rights on August 3 1, 1971, after 10 years in that
office. His achievements will undoubtedly have a
permanent influence on the course of both domes-
tic and foreign copyright. He carried the program
for the general revision of the copyright law,
begun in 1955, through a decade of development
toward enactment, and his accomplishments in
international copyright, culminating in the revision
of the Universal Copyright Convention adopted at
Paris on July 24, 197 1, were of outstanding signifi-
cance. Upon his retirement, Mr. Kaminstein was
appointed to a three-year term as honorary con-
sultant in domestic and international copyright
affairs.
George D. Cary was named by the Librarian of
Congress to succeed Mr. Kaminstein as register of
REPORT OF THT- REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1972
copyrights. Mr. Cary, who has been on the staff of
the Copyright Office for almost 25 years, had been
deputy register of copyrights since 1961.
STEPS TOWARD AUTOMATION
Studies looking toward the automation of some of
.
the operations of the Copyright Office have been
going 011 for several years. The legislation making
sound recordings the subject of registration pre-
sented an opportunity to use this class of material ,.
as a pilot project for bringing together certain
examining and cataloging operations and for
processing the cataloging records on terminals
linked t o a computer. Although experimentation
with this new mode of operation continues, i t
seems clear that the Catalog o f Copyright Entries
for sound recordings and the cards for the copy-
righi card catalog can be produced by computer.
Meanwhile, study also continued on the applica-
tion of automation to other types of material and
other areas of operations.
Toward the end of the fiscal year, arrangements
were completed for a study of the Copyright
Office operations by a private management con-
sulting firm. The goal of the study is t o identify
problem areas, propose iinproved methods f o r
dealing with them, and generally to recommend
ways for the office t o meet more effectively a
workload that has increased at the rate of more
than 4 percent a year.
THE YEAR'S COPYRIGHT BUSINESS
Total registrations for fiscal 1972 amounted t o
344,574. This figure not only represents a n
increase of 4.5 percent over the previous fiscal
year but also reflects a growth of 35 percent dur-
ing the last decade.
For the first time registrations in any single class
during a given year exceeded 100,000, books
reaching a total of 103,321. Both the other t w o
major classes, periodicals and music, also showed a
slight growth, registrations for music increasing b y
2 percent to 97,482 and periodical registrations
increasing by less than 1 percent t o 84,686.
Motion picture registrations in classes L and M
rose 34 percent to a total of 3,204, owing prob-
ably to the use of the revised motion picture agree-
 REPORT OF THE REGISTER 01: ('OPYRIGHTS. 1972
merit. Renewals recovered from a decline in the
previous year and climbed 12 percent to a total of
23,239.
The volume of recordations of notices of inten-
tlon to use musical compositions o n sound record-
ings was by far the largest to date for a single year.
Recordation was made for more than 41,700
titles, as against a total of 976 in fiscal 1971 and
83 in 1970. This increase was largely the result of
recordations by duplicators of discs and tapes
seeking, by means of the compulsory licensing
Provisions of the statute, to avoid liability under
the section of Public Law 92-140 which grants
additional remedies against the unlawful use of
musical cOm~ositionson sound recordings.
There were only two areas of significant
decrease. Commercial prints and labels fell 7 per-
cent to 4,118, the lowest since 1940, wjien tlis
category of material first became registrable in the
Copyright Office; and registrations of foreign
b o o k s (excluding ad interim registrations)
decreased 8 percent to a total of 5,408.
Like registrations, fees earned for copyright ser-
vices reached a new high of over 52,177,000. The
Service Division handled for deposit more than
126,143 separate remittances and processed
442,759 pieces of incoming and 41 3,820 pieces of
outgoing mail--over 3,500 every working day. The
figure for incoming mail is particularly significant,
since it not only is a new high but is also 18 per-
cent more than last year.
Of the 391,532 applications for registrationand
documents for recordation handled in the Examin-
ing Division, 85 percent were acted on without
correspondence. Rejections amounted to 2.5 per-
cent, while the remaining 12.5 percent required
correspondence which led to favorable action.
The Cataloging Division prepared a total of' some
2,117,700 catalog cards. Of these 87 1,900 were
added to the copyright card catalug, 002,700 were
used t o produce the printed Catalog of Cop.vrig/zl
Enfnrries, 75,700 were supplied to other depart.
nlents of the Library ot' Congress. and 267.400
were sent to subscribers to the Cooperalive Card
Service.
Of the Copyright Office activities having no
direct relation to fees? the services of the I'ublic
Information Office are among the most important.
This office received more than 31.000 telephone
3
calls-an increase o f 23 percent over the previous
year and double the number of 1 0 years ago-and
answered 30,600 letters-an increase of 16 percent
over fiscal I971 and double the number received
five years ago. In addition, 4,650 visitors came to
the Public Information Office, 15 percent more
than in the previous year and the highest total
since the Copyright Office was moved to the
Crystal Mall Annex in 1969.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS
Sixteen issues of the Catalog of Cop.vrigfzt Entries,
which the Copyright Office publishes in accord-
ance with the statute, were published in fiscal
1972; allother 10 issues were ~ i ~ a dreadye for
publication.
Over the years the Copyright Office has pub-
lished at intervals a conipilation of decisions of the
federal and state courts involving copyright and
related subjects, for official and public use. The
most recent volume, publisl~ed this year, is
Decisiot~sof the United States Coftrts involving
Copj~riglit,1969-1970, compiled and edited by
Benjamin W. Rudd of the Copyright Office, and
issued as Cop-yright Oifice Bulletit1 No. 37.
COPYRIGHT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Of the niore than 551,000 articles deposited for
registration during the fiscal year, 324,350,
approxin~ately 60 percent, were transferred t o
other departments of the Library of Congress,
where they were available for inclusion in its c01-
lections or for use in its various gift and exchange
programs.
LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS
In addition to the statement by Senator McClellan
concerning the revision bill and the enactment of
the amendment on sound recol-dings, there were
several other legislative developments in copyright
and related fields.
On November 24, 197 I . I'ublic L.aw 92-170 was
enacted to extend :ill subsisting copyrights in their
second term thal would otherwise expire before
December 31, 1972, so that they would conti~iue

in force to that date. Six earlier acts of Congress,
the first enacted on September 19, 1962, had
successively extended until the end of 1971 the
length of all subsisting second-term copyrights that
would have expired before December 3 1, 1971. As
already mentioned, S.J. Res. 247 was introduced
by Senator McClellan on June 20, 1972, to pro-
vide a further extension until the end of 1974; S.J.
Res. 247 was passed by the Senate on June 30,
1972, and was pending in the House of Represen-
tatives at the end of the fiscal year.
Private Law 92-60 was enacted on December 15,
1971, granting special copyr~ghtprotection, for a
term of 75 years from the effective date of the act
or from the date of first publication, whichever is
later, to the trustees under the will of Mary Baker
Eddy, their successors, and assigns in her work
Science and Health; With Key to the Scriprures,
"including all editions thereof in English and trans-
lation heretofore published, or hereafter published
by or on behalf of said trustees, their successors or
assigns."
Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr., introduced on
August 4, 1971, a bill (S. 2427) to amend the
Conl~nunicationsAct of 1934 lo provide for the
regulation of cable television systems by estab-
lishing a nationwide format to promote the growth
of cable television and a national policy for the
Federal Communications Commission to follow.
JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS
Extension of copyright protection t o sound
recordings provided by the act of October 15,
197 1, Public Law 92-140, was challenged in Shaub
v. Kleindiensr, 174 U.S.P.Q. 197 (D.D.C. 1972),
an action brought against the Attorney General of
the United States and the Librarian of Congress to
enjoin implementation and enforcement of the
new law. The complaint alleged that sound record-
ings do not qualify as writings of an author within
the meaning of article I , section 8 of the Constitu-
tion, and that Congressional failure to provide for
compulsory licensirig of copyrighted recordings
unfairly discriminates against the plaintiff and
others who are subject to cornpulsory licensing of
their n~usicalconipositions.
The co~nplaintwas disndssed on the merits by a
three-judge court which held the requirements of
REPOR'I' 01: THE REGISTER OF.' COPYRIGHTS, 1972
authol.ship in the copyright <:lause were satisfied
by the provision of equipment by sound recording
firms a n d their organization of the "diverse talents
of arrangers, perfornlers and tcchnicians." The
presence in the 1909 Copyright Law of compul-
sory licensing provisio~lsfor the recording of copy-
righted musical cornpositions was noted by the
tribunal, together with the absence from Public
Law 92-140 of any correspo~idingprovision appli-
cable to the reproduction of' sound recordings, and
the contrast in treatment was found to be both
"rational and reasonable."
The court observed that, whereas the "compul-
sory licensing of' copyrighted nlusical compositions
promotes the arts by permitting numerous artistic
interpretations of a single written composition,"
no such public benefits would result from the
proliferation of identical versions of recorded
compositions. Moreover, "competition and the
creative aspects of the industry would be impaired
since established recording firms would be discour-
aged from invcsting in new arrangements and
performers, if they were co~npelledt o license their
successful interpretations to those desiring to take
advantage of the originator's initiative and to add
nothing themselves."
Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright Protection
A three-part television show based on the life of
Ezra Pound was the subject of an unsuccessful suit
for infringement by the author and copyright
owner of Pound's published biography in Norman
v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 333 F.
Supp. 788 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). In dismissing the
complaint, the court noted that the allegedly
infringing items listed by the plaintiff actually con-
sisted of "material constituting historical facts.
material which is in the public domain, isolated
words or phrases, ideas or creations of plaintiffs
mind or which are not original with plaintiff and.
hence, are not copyrightable." The words of Judge
Learned Hand 111 an unreported 1919 case were
quoted to further elucidate the court's view of this
important point:
. . . not only are all the facts recorded in a history in tbc
public domain, but, since tlle narration of history mil<[
proceed chronologially,-or at least, such is the
 Convention,--the order in which the facts are reported
must be the same in the case of a second supposed author.
There canno: he any such thing as copyrisht in the order
of presentation of tilt facts, nor, indeed. in their selec-
tion, although into that sclcction m;ly go the highest
genius of authorship, for indeed. history depends wholly
upon a selcclion fro111 the undifferentiated mass of
recorded facts. b1~~n.sv. Mail & Express Conzpar?)~,36
C.0. Bull. 478. 479 (S.D.N.Y., Sepi. 23, 1919).
Printed answer sheets created for use in conjunc-
tion with student achievemenr and intelligence
tests and designed to be corrected by optical
scanning machines were held copyrightable "writ-
ings" under the Copyright Act in Harcourf. Brace
& World, Irzc. v. Graphic Cot7trols Corp., 320 F.
Supp. 5 1 7 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). Arguing that the
answer sheets were not mere forms upon which
infornlation is to be recorded, tlle court noted that
t h e sheets contain "a niix of inherent rueaning, o f
information conveyed, and the i~tilityfor record-
ing of responses."
The alleged infringement of a college-level text-
book o n econo~nicswas the issue in :l.lcCraw-//ill,
. Worth I'uhli.slrcr.s, Itlc., 335 I-'. Supp. 415
1 1 7 ~v.
(S.D.N.Y. 1C17 1 '). In denying tlie l)l;~inti('f's~ n o t i o i ~
for a preliminary injunction. thc coi~rtnoted that
t h e "verbatim duplication of any nlateiial part" of
the textbook was neither alleged tior could i t be
proved.
Rather, the ;illeg:~tion i'; t h a t thc "pattcrn" of f h c . . .
[allegedly i n f r ~ n g e d ]test has hcen ;~ppropriatcd.. . . If'
the allegedly copied "pattern" in l h i c ci~sesl~ouldturn out
to be plaintiffs abstracl idea? rhc~nsclvrs.ratlier Ihan
their concrete expression, then their r-upyright would 1101
b e infringed. . . . Tl~isis b c c . ; ~ ~ ~tl~eoric\
se :lritl conccpts are
in the public domain; ihe copyrighi l;~\vz scck ''1'~) pro-
mote the Progrcss of Science a n d Ilscful ;\rts.". . . n o t t o
ctlfle progress by granting intellci,tu;~lrn~.)nopoliex.
I n an action for infringement of a copyrighted
textile design, /,oonzski/l, f n c v. Sreiri 13 Fi.shnian
Fabrics, h l c . , 3 3 2 F . Supp. 1288 (S.D.N.Y. 197 1).
the court explained its award of an iniilnction to
t h e plaintiff by colrlparing [he co~iil)etingd e s i p ~ "expression" presented special difficulty. "Wllen
patterns: "The effect achicved by h e tlefe~lilant the 'idea' and its 'expression' are thus inseparable,
through its design is materially the same as that of
plaintiffs design and the two desigis are confus-
ingly similar. I t is true that defendant's design is
built around figures of dogs whereas the copy-
righted design is built around cats. hilt apart from
and despite this difference the designs are essen-
tially the same." The ultimate test depends upon
the untrained eye of the lay observer. Thus,
despite the differences pointed out by the defend-
ant's witnesses, the "average person would
consider the motif, layout and general appearance
as the same even though the details are not
identical."
A different situation was dealt with in Lauratex
Texrile Corp. v. Citatioii Fabrics Corp., 328 F.
Supp. 554 (S.D.N.Y. 1971). In this instance, the
court denied plaintiffs motion for an injunction
on the ground that the textile designs of both the
plaintiff and the defendant were variations of a
pattern in the public domain and that the defend-
ant's design was more easily distinguished from the
plain t i f f s than the plaintiffs was from the public
dolllain pattern. Assuming the validity of the
plain tiffs copyright, the judge observed that the
"juxtaposition of flowers, birds and bees is well-
traveled terrain in design concept. and it does not
take nluch in the way of variation t o merit a new
copyright. But. once this is said, the same reason-
i ~ which
~ g supports the validity of plaintiff s copy-
right operates to dcfeat the charge of copyright
infringen~ent." Hence, "if plaintiff can get a valid
copyright by making a few minor variations, then
defendant too car1 get a valid copyright by making
a few more variations on the pattern."
A gold-encrt~stedjeweled pin in the form of a
bee reappeal-ed on the judicial scene in ffcrberr
Kosetirl7a/ J c ~ v e h : ~Corp.
, v. Kalpokiclr?, 446 F. 2d
738 (?t I1 Cir. I97 I). Ruling against the plaintiff on
the infrirlge~nent issue. despite the substantial
similarity c ~ f the competing designs, the court
ad,iudged the jeweled pin lo be "an 'idea' that
d e f e ~ ~ d a nwere
ts f.ree to copy." F~lrthermore,the
court declared that there "is no greater similarity
between the pills of plaintiff and defendants than
is inevitable from the use of jewel-encrusted bee
fornls in both." In the court's estimation, the
apparent irldistinguishability of the "idea" and its
copying the 'expression' will not be barred because
protection f o r the 'expression' in such circum-
stances would confer a nlonopoly of the 'idea'
upon the copyright owner free o f the conditions
and linlilat~onsimposed by t l ~ epatent law."
 The copyrightability of scale-model airplanes
was upheld in Monogram Models, Inc. v. Industro
Motive Corp., 448 F . 2d 284 (6th Cir. 1971), a
case in which the significance of similarities
between plastic scale models was an important
issue. In the court's view, "the fact that scale
models were of the same actual airplanes and that
similarities were explained in terms of common
industrial practices tends to raise a genuine issue of
fact as to whether the similarities were simple
resemblances, being a natural by-product of the
expression of identical ideas, or copyright infringe-
ment ."
Dismissal of an action for infringement of
common law rights in architectural plans used to
erect a fabricating mill for steel joists was based on
a finding that the drawings had been given general
publication without any reservation of copyright,
in Nucor Corp. v. Tennessee Forging Steel Service,
Inc., 339 F . Supp. 1305 (W.D. Ark. 1972). The
court took pains to observe that even "when the
common law copyright has been held t o be in
effect it has not been extended to such an extent
as t o prevent the erection of buildings that are
merely similar."
The alleged infringement of copyrighted resi-
dential house plans was the basis of suit in
Imperiul Homes Corp. v. Lamont, 458 F. 2d 895
(5th Cir. 1972). Remanding the case to the trial
court for resolution of factual disputes, the
opinion cautioned that "no copyrighted archi-
tectural plans under $5(i) may clothe their author
with the exclusive right to reproduce the dwelling
pictured," but, on the other hand, the "exclusive
right to copy what is copyrighted belongs to thc
architect, even though the plans give him no
unique claim on any feature of the structure they
detail."
Publication
In an action for infringement of a copyrighted
ornamental planter, Hirb Floral Corp. v. Royal
Brass Corp., 454 F . 2d 1226 (2d Cir. 1972), the
trial court ruled against the plaintiff for its failure
to comply with the registration requirements of
the law applicable to published works. Sixty
samples of the planter had been distributed to
salesmen and photographs had been inserted in a
catalog, but the manufacturer had apparently not
delivered any copies intended for public sale.
Reversing the judgment on appeal, the upper court
said: "It has long been settled (hat the taking of
orders through en~ployine~tt of samples, catalogs,
or advertisements of a work does no1 ainount to
publication of the work."
Publication of architectural plans was an issue in
the previously mentioned case of N~rcorCorp. v.
Tennessee Forging Steel Senlice, In(:., in which the
court found that "by giving the approximately
thirty sets of plans to bidders; by placing no limi-
tation on their circulation, by permitting any and
all interested people to see, visit and inspect the
building in all stages of construction aitd the entire
plant when in operation after construction was
completed, as well as by its conduct and advertis-
ing campaign Nucor gave the plans general publica-
tion; and after general publication there was no
protected common law copyright."
In International Tape Manufh.c.turt?r.?~ssociation
v. Gerstein, 174 U.S.P.Q. 198 (S.D. Fla. 1972), the
survival of common law rights in recorded sounds
was one of the issues involved in a successful
challenge of a state law against ~.ecordpiracy. On
the question of publication, the court held "that
authorized disseinination of recorded sounds
manufactured from a ntasler disc constitutes a
'general publication' of both the undcrlying
composition and the performance sufficierlt to
deprive the owner of any common law copyright
to which he might have been entitled."
Tlie opinion pointed out that once "the records
and tapes are generally distributed to the public,
tlic performances embodied within the rccorded
sounds lose c o m m o ~law~ copyright protection."
Consequently, the argument that "the Florida
statute can pernlissibly regulate colninon law
copyright must be denied because there is no
cornmon law copyright to persons who distribute
such sound recordings."
Notice of Copyright
The case of I'uddn v. Buor7arn1ciStatuary. Inc.,
450 F . 2d 401 (2d Cir. 1071) involved the ade-
quacy of the copyright notice on 12 published
statuettes of elves carrying vafiious musical inslru-
ments. The plaintiffs had endeavored to comply
 lEmRT OF THEREGISTER 01;COPYRIGHTS, 1972
t h e s t a t u t o r y notice provisions by placing on
.he base o f each figure the symbol O and the
etters "ARP,'- and on the back of the statuettes
:ertain m a r k i n g s "presun~ably purporting," in the
words of t h e trial judge. "to be the name, Angelo
R. P u d d u , b u t which 1 cannot decipher, even with
the Ad of a powerful reading glass."
The fact t h a t a certificate of doing business
under the n a m e of ''ARP" had been filed with the
k w Y o r k C o u n t y Clerk was held insufficient
proof that the were actually trading as
''ARP." I t was also argued unsuccessfully that the
defendant k n e w of the use of the name "ARP"
prior t o i n f r i n g e m e n t because of an earlier suit for
unfair c o m p e t i t i o n . The court rejected this conten-
tion a n d u p h e l d the dismissal of the complaint.
Registration
In an a c t i o n for libel, Legros v. Jeppson, 171
U.S.P.Q. 4 2 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 7, 1971), the
date of first publication of the offending book was
the p r i n c i p a l issue. Pointing out that publication
"for t h e p u r p o s e of defamation and for the pur-
pose of c o p y r i g h t may not tender the same legal
issue," the c o u r t observed that "plaintiffs reliance
on the date o f publication set forth in the copy-
right a p p l i c a t i o n as conclusive proof of the publi-
cation date in the libel action is misplaced." The
date of p u b l i c a t i o n in the records of the Copyright
Office " w o u l d appear to be merely one of the
factors to b e considered in determining when,
a c c o r d i n g to the practice in the trade, publication
is d e e m e d to have occurred."
In the previously mentioned case of Monogram
Models, Inc. v. Industro Motive Corp., important
factual d i s p u t e s between the litigants occasioned a
reminder f r o m the court that, although the certifi-
cate of copyright registration constitutes prima
facie e v i d e n c e of the facts contained therein,
i n c l u d i n g t h e sufficiency of the notice on the
copies of the work at the time of first publication,
it is a p r e s u m p t i o n that is "clearly rebuttable."
H o w e v e r , in Laurarex Textile Corp. v. Citation
Fabrics C o r p . , also mentioned earlier, the court
assumed t h a t tlie evidentiary presumption of the
c e r t i f i c a t e extended beyond the facts and consti-
tuted "evidence of a valid copyright." In another
case cited elsewhere, Consolidated Music Pub
/ishers, Inc. v. Hansen Publications, hzc., 339 F.
. 61 (S.D.N.Y. 1972), a preliminary injunc-
S ~ P P 11
tion was awarded on motion because the plaintiffs
book "easily satifies the test or copyrig]ltabi]ity"
when the certificate of registration is "accorded
the benefit of the statutory presumption ofcopy-
right validity."
The defendant in Harcourt, Brace & World, htc.
v. Graphic Controls C o p . relied on the landmark
decision in Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879):
and Section 202.l(c) of the Regulations of the
Copyright Office concerning blank forms and
other works designed solely to record information.
to support the contention that printed answer
sheets used for test scoring and intended for
correction by optical scanning machines were
forms usable only for recording information and.
hence, not copyrightable "writings." Rejecting
these arguments. the court held the answer sheets
to be copyrightable, because. arnong other things
(as the court was led to believe). "the record
indicates that the Copyright Office has registered
separate answer sheets for copyright and tl~ushas
construed its own regulations contrary to the
interpretation urged by the defendant ." The court
made a fi~rtlierobservation that "in light of the
fact that the Copyright Office regards compute^.
.
programs as copyrightable. . . i t appears logical to
conclude that the practice and policy of the Copy-
right Office is consciously to accept answer sheets
for registration."
In Herbert Roserz tlzal Jewelrv C.'orp. v . k-at-
pakian, cited earlier, the court rejected as too
broad the plaintiffs contention that registration o f
its jeweled pin in the form of a bee "entitles i t to
protection from the manufacture and sale by
others of any object that to the ordinary observer
is substantially similar in appearance." Contrasting
the patent grant which "is carefully circumscribed
by substantive and procedural proteclions" with
copyright registration which "confers no right at
all to the conception reflected in the registered
subject matter," the court noted Ihat, aside from a
prohibition against plagiarism of another's effort,
"there is no requirement that the work differ
substantially from prior works or that i t contrib-
Ute anything of value. . . . There is no administra-
tive investigation or determination O K the validity
of the claim. A certificate is refused only i f the

object falls outside the broad category of matter
subject to copyright registration."
Ownerdlip and Transfer of Rights
The ownership of copyright in individual articles
published in copyrighted medical journals was an
important issue in Williams & Wilkins C O ~ P U ~ J J
v. United States, 172 U.S.P.Q. 670 (Ct. C1. 1972),
an action for copyright infringement arising from
the unauthorized photocopying of articles by the
National Institutes of Health and the National
Library of Medicine. Conceding the plaintiffs
ownership of copyright in the journals in which
the articles appeared, the defendant disputed the
plaintiffs proprietary interest in the articles on the
grounds that their authors "did not make written
assignment to plaintiff of their proprietary interest substance than of form: " 'Printing' and 'reprint-
in the inanuscripts from which the articles
stemmed. . . ." In his written opinion the commis-
sioner rejected the contention, pointing out that
"the only reasonable inference (there being no
evidence to the contrary) is that the authors
assigned Lo plaintiff, ab initio and by implication,
the ownership rights to their manuscripts, and did
not grant to plaintiff a mere license to publish."
The copyrighted song "Who's Afraid of the Big
Bad Wolf?" reappeared in litigation this year on
appeal from the lower court's judgment for the
defendant on the pivotal issue of ownership rights.
Picture Music, lnc. v. Bourne, Inc., 457 F . 2d 12 13
(2d Cir. 1972). The judgment was affirmed by the
upper court on the grounds that the contribution
of the songwriter, the plaintiff-appellant's prede-
cessor in interest, was work done for hire within
the n~eani~lg of that term as used in 5 24 of the
Copyright Act. In determining whether a work was
actually done for hire, the opinion noted that the
"absence of a fixed salary, however, is never
conclusive, . . . nor is the freedom to do other
work, especially in an independent contractor
situation. . . ." Iiolding that the renewal rights
accrued exclusively to defendant-appellee as
"proprietor," Judge Hays described the role
played by the employers of the songwriter: "They
controlled the original song. they took the initia-
tjve ill engaging. . . [the songwriter] to adapt it, in the original works, provided such songs or
and [hey had the power to accept, reject, or
niodify her work. She in turn accepted payment
t R COPYRIGHTS, 1972
REPORT Ot 'SHE K I ~ , C ; I ~ ~01:
for iL without proiest, except as to the amount,
for 27 years. That she acted ill the capacity of a n
independent contractor does not preclude a
finding that the song was done for hire."
lnfringemcnt and Remedies
The defense in the previously noted case of Wil-
liams d Wilkins Conzpuny v. United States argued
unsuccessfully that the act of making single copies
of book or periodical material is insufficient t o
incur liability, and that, to be actionable, the
"copying" must include "printing" (or "reprint-
ing") and the "publishing" of multiple copies.
The commissioner found the statutory proscrip-
tion of unauthorized duplication a matter more o f
ing' connote making a duplicate original, whether
by printing press or a more modern method o f
duplication. . . . 'Publishing' means disseminating
t o others, which defendant's libraries clearly d i d
when they distributed photocopies to requesters
and users." Moreover, "there is nothing in t h e
copyright statute or the case law to distinguish, i n
principle, the making of a single copy of a copy-
righted work from the making of multiple
copies. . . . And the courts have held that duplica-
tion of a copyrighted work, even t o make a single
copy, can constitute infringement."
The mere fact that libraries may be motivated
by high purpose does not exempt them f r o m
liability for copying. Such an exemption "is a
matter for Congress, not the courts, to consider
for it involves questions of public policy a p t l y
suited t o the legislative process."
The determination of what constitutes a "non-
dramatic" performance was crucial in two infringe-
ment actions involving the rock opera "Jesus
Christ Superstar": Rice v. American Prograns
Bureau, 416 F. 2d 685 (2d Cir. 1971), and Robert
Stigwood Group Limited v. Sperber, 457 F. 2d 5 0
(2d Cir. 1972). In the earlier case, the court h c l d
that it was not a "dramatic" perfor~nanceof t h e
opera to present separate songs, fragments of
songs, or excerpts fro111 the opera, including lyrics
excerpts are not accompanied by "words. panto-
mime, dance, costumes, or scenery [hat will lend a
 REPORT OF THE REGISTER 01; COPYRIGHTS. 1972
visual representation of the work from which the
music is taken."
The nondramatic performing rights of composi-
tions in the licensed repertory of the American
Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers
were also involved in the later suit, in which the
court held that the performance of 20 of the total
number of 23 selections, all but one of which were
in the same sequence as in the opera, is a "dramat-
ic" performance. Moreover, the absence of scenery
x costumes "does not ipso facto prevent it from
3eing dramatic." The court explained that even
"the presentation of five or six songs could under
m a i n circumstances, develop an essential portion
)f the drama, . . . thus infringing on a part of the
Vera. The sequence of the songs seems to be the
inchpin in this case. If the songs are not sung in
Equence, . . . and there are no costumes, scenery,
lr intervening dialogue, we are confident that the
'esulting performance could not tell the
;tory. . . .>
9
In Duchess Music Corp. v. Stern, 458 F. 2d 1305
9th Cir. 1972); petition fur cert. filed sub tom.
Zosner v. Duchess Music Corp., 40 U.S.L.W. 3577
U.S. May 26, 1972) (No. 71-1551), an action
jrought by the owners of copyrighted musical
:ompositions against the makers of allegedly
'pirate" sound recordings, the defendants invoked
he compulsory license provisions of the Copyright
Lct o f 1909, filing a Notice of Intention to Use,
nd acknowledging plans to continue the manu-
acture of taped music bjl the same duplicating
iethods used in the past. Reversing the lower
ribunal's decision which had been favorable to the
efendants on this point, the court, referring io
I(e) o f the Copyright Act, said: "The statute
,rovides that anyone who properly invokes the
cense provision 'may make sinzilar use [italics
dded] of the copyrighted work.' . . . [Defendanl]
Losner admits that she duplicates appellants'
opyrighted compositions. She does no1 make
iimilar use' of them, she makes exact and identi-
a1 copies of them. This is clearly outside the
:ope o f the compulsory license schcnle."
Conceding that the defendants 11ad the right to
:cord their own original perforlnances of the
opyrighted music, the court denied their "right to
~ p y , "pointing out that "Sears [Koebuck 6i 0).
Stiffel Co., 376 U . S . 225 (1 964)l and Col11~co
[Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234
(1 964)] do not sanction [defendant] Rosner's
outright appropriation, in vioIation of copyright,
of the actual performances contained on appel-
lants' records."
Construing the remedial provisions of 5 101(c)
and (d), the court reversed the district judge's
order for the return of all impounded "tape
recording equipment and machinery, as well
as . . . all blank tapes, cartridges, cassettes, labels
or any unmarked or unprinted packaging mate-
rials," saying that there is no reason to limit the
items t o be impounded and destroyed to only
those "items embodying an identifiable impression
of the copyrighted work." If the articles seized are
infringing copies or provide the means for making
infringing copies, the court argued, neither "the
statute nor the Supreme Court rules give the
District Court any discretion to determine what to
impound or what to destroy." Keferring to the
1909 act, the court observed: "Congress intended
to impound and destroy 'the whole of the para-
phernalia,' including those items which may be
used for other purposes."
In dissent, Judge Byrne argued that prior t o the
recerl t amendmen1 to the Copyright Law protect-
i~lgsound recordings [Public Law 92-1401. the
unauthorized production of phonograph records
and tapes did not violate federal .copyright law,
assuming there had been co~npliance with the
compulsory license provisions. Defendant Kosner
both co~nplied with the federal law and took
advantage of the loopliole it provided when she
filed a Notice of Intention to Use. Observed the
judge: "Because I believe this to be the very 'loop-
hole' the Mew amendments are intended to close. I
cannot concur in the majority opinion's disposi-
tion of the co~npulsorylicense issue."
The question of whether the reception by cable
TV systems of broadcast television signals
elnbodyirlg copyrighted material and the transmis-
sion of lhose signals to lhe homes of subscribers
constitute infringetnent w3s presented to the court
i11 0 ) l u mbia nroudcas/ ing Svsr ern, fnc. v. Telc-
/ ~ r ( > t n p l c r Corporuliczt?, 173 U.S.IB.Q. 778
(S.D.N.Y. 1972). 'l'he plail-lrirf' soughl to distin-
guisl~this case f r o m /;i~rlni~~hllv Cc)rp. v . Utlitcd
.4rtists 7i?levi.s;(>n f n ~. . . 392 U.S. 390 (1968) on
the grounds [hat t1'1e defendan1 herc also origi-

nated a substantial amount of its own programing,
and that it relayed the distant broadcast signals to
its subscribers who could not have received them
otherwise. The court observed that in originating
its own programing the defendant functions as a
broadcaster, but that its reception and transmis-
sion of broadcast signals is a separable function
and is not itself a performance of plaintiffs works
and hence not an infringement of their copyrights.
The court saw no valid distinction between this
case and Fortnightly. Using the criteria set forth in
Fortnightly to determine whether cable TV
systems "perform" the works relayed to their
viewers within the meaning of section 1 of the
Copyright Act, the court contrasted the latitude of
the broadcaster "which controls program content
and scheduling" with the cable systems which
"receive the signals of the television stations they
carry continuously, and distribute them without
editing or deletion," and in general " 'do not'
otherwise choose the sequence or content of pro-
grams they receive and carry to subscribers."
Broadcasters, on the other hand, "determine the
nature of programs to be viewed and the times
they will be shown."
Unfair airinpetitiona d Other Theories of Protection
An interesting legal problem was presented in
Lugosi v. Universal Picture Company, Inc., 172
U.S.P.Q.541 (Gal. Super. Ct. 1972), an action for
breach of contract brought by the heirs of the late
Bela Lugosi who sought to recover profits derived
from the conmercial licensing of the use of the
Count Dracula character. The court held that
"Bela Lugosi's interest or right in his likeness and
appearance as Count Dracula was a property right
of such character and substance that it did not
terminate with his death but descended to his
heirs." Contrasting the right of property in a
character with the right of privacy which ends
with the death of the holder of the right, the court
set forth what it considered the better view, "that
a celebrity's interest in his name, appearance, like-
ness and personality which has a publicity pecuni-
ary value, should be considered a property right
separate and apart from the right of privacy, and
that a person who, without authorization, a p p m
priates such a ~ e m n ' sname, appearance, likeness
REPORT OF THE KEGlSTER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1972
or personality, has appropriated the property of
such person and has-caused a pecuniary loss for
which damages inay be recovered."
In Riback E~~terprises, lnc. v . Denham, 452 F.
2d 849 (2d Cir. 1971), the defendant relied upon
the Swrs and Compco decisions to attack the
lower court's injunction against the sale of three-
page fold-out greeting cards "which have the same
format" :is those of the plaintiff. The court of
appeals set the prelinlinary injunction aside, noting
that "plaintiff has no more right to keep defend-
ants from selling greeting cards because they
imitate the format of its. . . [ C J W ~than] Stiffel
Company or Day-Brite had to prevent competitors
from selling imitations of their pole lamps and
lighting fixtures."
The Sears and Compco cases were also discussed
by the court in Tomlin v . Walt Disney Produc-
tions, 96 Cal. Rptr. 118 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1971),
an action for unfair competition and misappropria-
tion by the composer of the song entitled "The
Love Bug Will Bite You" against the producer of a
motion picture entitled "The Love Bug" reaturing
a Volkswagen automobile having human attri-
butes. Affirming summary judgment for the
defendant, the court said: "The title to a literary
or musical composition is not protectible by copy-
right," although "the owner of such a composition
has been held t o acquire a property right in the
title when that title has acquired a 'secondary
meaning' identifying it in the public mind with the
literary work." More specifically, "a broad perma-
nent injunction" against the use of the plaintiffs
title by Disney predicated upon a theory of
misappropriation "cannot be constitutionally
countenanced in light of Sears and Compco."
Moreover, observed the court: "Mere priority of
use does not create or establish a 'secondary mean-
ing' for a title."
The constitutionality of a recently enacted
Florida statute imposing criminal penalties for the
"piracy" of sound recordings when copies are sold
for profit was the key issue in h t e n v l t i o ~ Tape
l
Manufacturers Association v. Gersfein, cited ear-
lier, a class action brought by an unincorporated
voluntary association seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief from future prosecutions threat-
ened under the state law. Holding the statute
unconstitutional "by virtue of the Supremacy
 REPORT OF THE REGISTER 01; COPYRIGHTS, 1972
Clause," and awarding a permanent injunction
against initiating prosecutions pursuant to it, the
court ohserved that a "state law rendering criminal
the unauthorized manufacture and sale of sound
flies in the face of Sears and Cornpco,
regardless of whether Congress has preempted the
field. "
The court explained that it could not "accept
the distinction drawn between physical appropria-
tion and copying" and thus must take issue with
the result of Tape Industries Association of A mer-
ica v- Younger, 3 16 F. Supp. 340 (C.D. Gal. 1970);
dismissed, 40 1 U.S. 902 (1 9 7 I), which
a similar statute in reliance upon the
misappropriation theory e~lunciated in Inter-
national News Service V. Associated Press, 248
U-S. 215 (1918). Conceding the possibility "that
t h e practice of pirating sound recordings is
unsavory or underhanded," the opinion empha-
sized the fact that "the federal law clearly
Permitted such practices prior to the enactment of'
9 2 - 1 4 0 [October 15, 19711 ."
Commenting on the decision in 1)uchess il.lnsic
Gorp. v. Stern, apreviously menlioned case wllicJ.1
Proscribed use o l the compulsory licellse provi-
s i o n s of t h e federal copyright laws as a vehicle f o r
c o p y i n g recorded sounds, the court said: "Tllis
interpretation of the compulsory license provisioll
is based on the misconception that because an
u n d e r l y i n g musical con~position is copyriglited,
t h e unauthorized reproduction of the performance
e m b o d i e d in the sound recording of that colnposi-
tion is. a n d ought to bel prohibited by thc federal
c o p y r i g h t laws. If the law %,ere as that Court
s t a t e d , then record pirates could not exist." but ill
f a c t , "the law is not what the Court stated. l'llc
C o u r t held thal Sears and Conlpco did not apply
b e c a u s e defendarlt duplicated the rccnlds a n d
t a p e s , thus 'stealing' the works of others. . . ."
T h e constilution;llity of Calirolmia's crirnit~al
s t a t u t e against tape piracy \vaz challerlged i n
Goldsrein ". S/a/c c!f Ca/i/(>r~?;u. .l:o. Cr. A 1 0 6 7
(Gal. Super. Ct., A p p Dep't. Sov. 13. 197 1 ). A
f i n a l review and on this sigl~ilica~lt
questiorr
was assured on. May 30: 1972; wllcrl I ~ CL:.S.
S u p r e n l e Court granted a writ of cerliorart !400
U.S. 956).
In Columbiu &y,adcostitzg $ys/a!?l. Itrc, v .
asto)), ~ ~ ~ S.L.,, 2d~
~ / n ~ : ,I80
11
305 (Sup. Ct., S.C. May 29, 1972), an action for
the alleged "pirating" of performances embodied
in phonograph recordings, one of the defenses was
a state statute abolishing common law rights in
commercially disseminated sound recordings in the
public domain. Reversing the trial judge who had
refused a temporary injunction, the court con-
cluded that "plaintiffs legal rights" had been
violated by "parasitic acts" which were "wrong-
ful." Referring t o the misappropriation theory set
forth in the International News Service case and
others, including the previously mentioned Tape
Industries Association o f America v. Younger, the
opinion found this line of argument "persuasive if
not indeed mandatory." notwithstanding the fact
that the "law of unlawful exploitation" is ''some-
what confused" as between the alternatives
offered by Ir~tcmatiorzalNews Service on the one
hand, and Sears and Corr~pcoon the other.
INTEKNA'I'IONAL COPYRIGHT DEVELOPMENTS
Among the outstanding events of the year were
the diplomatic conferences to revise the Universal
Copyriglit Converition (uCC)and the Berne Con-
vention. held simultaneously on July 5-24, 1971,
in Paris. Twenty-six countries, including the
United States. signed tbe revised Universal Copy-
~.iglltConvention: the revised Berne Convention, of
which the United States is not a member, was
signed by 28 countries. The U.S. delegation,
hcaded by Abraham I,. Kaminstein. then register
of copyriglits. and Bruce C. Ladd, Jr., deputy
assistant sccr.ctary of stale for co~nrnercialafl'airs
and business ;~ctivities,as cochairmen, participated
actively in the ECC revision conference. The
tlelegation attended the Berne revision conference
as observers.
George D. Cary. the new register of copyrights,
as well as Mr. Ladd and Mr. Kaminstein, testified
ill support oc ratiiication at hearings in July before
tlle Foreign Kelatic>ns Committee. The Senate on
August 1.1.; 1972. by a vote of 67 yeas to rio nays.
adrfised and coriser~tedto ratification or the revised
I.!(:<:
T h i s was the fitst revisic~nof lhe llniversal Copy-
right Conver~tron.~hic11w3s cstablislied i n I952
and came I I I ~ O force I ~ I19.55. 'The ncw tcxt specifi-
cally~enurnelales d certainj basic rights ~ ~
o t authors, ~
12
including the exclusive rights of reproduction by
any means, public performance, a11d broadcasting.
Concomitantly, special exceptions are permitted
for developing countries to allow them to institute
procedures for the compulsory licensing of transla-
tions and reproductions of certain works for
educational purposes, if the works are not made
available within a stated time in the country con-
cerned. The revised convention requires no imple-
menting legislation here, since U.S. law is already
in accord with its provisions. By its terms the new
text will not enter into force until 12 countries
adhere to it.
Corresponding exceptions for developing coun-
tries were provided for in the 197 1 revision of the
Berne Convention, displacing the wider exceptions
in the Protocol to the 1967 Stockholm revision of
the Berne Convention, which had proved unac-
ceptable. Although the United States is not a
member of Berne, the revised Berne Convention
will not become effective until the United States,
the United Kingdom, France, and Spain have rati-
fied the revised U C c .
The 1971 revision of the two conventions is
designed to resolve the controversy between
developing and developed countries that had been
generated by the 1967 Stockholm Protocol and
had threatened t o disrupt the international copy-
right structure. The resolution worked out at the
1971 revision conferences was generally acceptable
to the representatives of both groups of countries,
and it reestablishes the balance between the two
conventions.
On October 29, 197 1, the Convention for the
Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against
Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms
came into being at Geneva, as the result of a diplo-
matic conference convened jointly by UNESCO
and the World intellectual Property Organization
(wIPo). intended to halt the pirating of sound
recordings, the convention was ultimately signed
by 31 countries, including the United States, and
will enter into force three months after deposit of
the fifth instrument of ratification, acceptance, or
REPORT OF' TI-IE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1972
accession. The U.S. delegation was led by Bruce C.
Ladd, Jr., of the State Department and George D.
Cary, then acting register of copyrights.
A second meeting of governmental experts on
copyright and related problems presented by space
satellite transmissions was held in Paris in May
1972, under the joi~itauspices of U N E S C O and
WIPO. The U.S. delegation included the registel of
copyrights. An amended draft convention was
prepared, which will be the basis for deliberations
at a third meeting of the governmental experts in
1973, with a view toward completion of the con-
vention at a diplomatic conference in 1974.
The numerous changes that occurred in inter-
national copyright relations are reflected in the
table appearing in the appendix. On December 13,
1971, the director-general of U N E S C O received a
coinmunication from the govcrnrnent of Fiji,
notifying hlm that it considered itself bound by
the Universal Copyright Conventron from its date
of independence, October 10, 1970; the Universal
Copyright Convention had been exlended to the
territory of Fiji by the United Kingdom between
March I , 1962, and the date of independence. The
instrument of accession by Morocco to the ucc
and annexed protocols 1, 2, and 3 were deposited
with the director-general of UNLSCO on February
8, 1972; the convention came into force, in
respect of Morocco, on May 8, 1972, three months
after the deposit of the instrument of accession.
Fiji and Morocco are the 61st and 62d countries to
adhere t o the Universal Copyright Convention.
Four countries became independent during the
year and were added to the table: Bahrain, Qatar,
United Arab Emirates (formerly the Trucial
States), and Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan).
Two countries changed their names and will now
be found in different places in the table: Congo
(Kinshasa) is now Zaire; and Ceylon is now Sri
Lanka.
Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE D. CARY
Register of Copyrights
 REPORT OF TIIF, REGISTER O F COPYRIGHTS, 1972

International Copyright Relations of the United States as of June 30, 19 72

Code: UCC Party to the Utliver~alCopyright Convention, as is the United States. The effective date isglvell for
each country. The effective datc for the United State.. was September 16, 1955.
BAC Party to the Bucnos Aires Convention of 1910, as is the United States.
Bilateral Bilatcral copyright relations with the United States by virtue of a proclamation or treaty.
Unclear Becamc independent since 1943. Has not establisl~edcopyright relations with the United States, but
may be honoring obligations incurred under former political status.
None No copyright relations with the United States.

Country Status of copyright relations Country Status of copyriglit relations

Afghanistan . . . . . None Dominican Republic . BAC

Albania . None Ecuador . . . . . . UCC June 5. 1957; BAC
a . Unclear Egypt . . . . . . . None
Andorra . UCC Sept. 16,1955 El Salvador . . . . . Bilateral by virtuc of Mexico
Argentina . . . . . . UCC Feb. 13, 1958: BAC; . City Convention, 1902
Bilateral Eqt~:itorialGuinea . . Unclear
Australia . . . . . . UCC May I ? 1969; Bilateral Ethiopia . . . . . . None
Austria . . . . . . . UCC July 2, 1057; Bilateral . . . . UCC Oct. 10, 1970
Bahrain . None Fil~lalid . . . . . . . lJCC April 16, 1963; Bilateral
Bangladesh . Unclear France . . . . . . . UCC Jan. 14,1956; Bilateral
Barbados . . . . . . U~~clear Gabon . . . . . . . Unclear
Belgium . UCC Aug. 31, 1960; Bilateral Gambia . . . . . . . U~~clear
Bllutan . . . . . . . None Gcrr~~any . . . . . . Bilateral:UCCwitli Federal
a . BAC Republic of Germany,
Botswana . . . . . . Unclear Sept. 16, 1955
Brazil . UCC Jan. 13, 1960; BAC: Gllana . . . . . . . UCC Aug. 22, 1962
Dilnteral Greece . . . . . . . UCC Aug. 24, 1963; Bilateral
Bulgaria . None Guatemala . . . . . lJC(1 O c f .28, 1964; BAC
Burma . Unclear Guinea . . . . . . . Unclear
Burundi . . . . . . Unclear Guyana . . . . . . . Unclear
Cambodia 1 . . . . . UCC Sept. 16, 1955 Haiti . . . . . . . . UCC Sept. 16, 1955; BAC
Cameroon . .... Unclear i-loly Sec . . . . . . UCC Oct. 5, 1955
Canada- . . . . . . . IJCC Aug. 10, 1962: Bilateral Honduras . . . . . . BAC
Central African I-lungary . . . . . . UC'C Jan. 23, 1971 :Bilateral
Republic . . . . . Unclear Iccland . . . . . . . UCC Dec. 18, 1956
Chad . . . . . . . . Unclear India . . . . . . . . UCC Jan. 21, 1958; Bilateral
Chile . . . . . . . . IJCC S e p ~ 16,
. 1955; SAC; Indonesia . . . . . . llnclear
Bilatcral Iran . . . . . . . . None
China . . . . . . . Bilateral Iraq . . . . . . . . Nonc
Colombia . . . . . . BAC lrcland . . . . . . . IJCC Jan. 20, 1959; Bilateral
Congo . . . . . . . Unclear Israel . . . . . . . . UCC Sept. 16, J 955 ; Bilateral
Costa Rica . . . . . IJCC: Sept. 16, 1955: BAC: l la1y . . . . . . . . UCC Jan. 24, 1957; Bilateral
Hilateral lvnry<:o;tst . . . . . lll?clcar
Cuba . . . . . . . . UCC June 18, 1957: Bilateral Janinica . . . . . . . U~lclcar
Cyprus . . . . . . . Unclear Japan . . . . . . . . l?CC April 28. I 956
Czechoslovakia . . . UCC Jan. 6. 1960; Bila~ernl Jordan . . . . . . . Unclear
Dal~onley . . . . . . lincle;rr Kcnya . . . . . . . UCC Sepi. 7,1966
Denrnark . . . . . . UCC I:eb. 9, 1962; Bilateral Korca . . . . . . . Unclear
14 REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, 1972

Country Status of copyright relations Country Status of copyright relations

Kuwait . . . Unclear Portugal . UCC Dec. 25, 19.56; Bilateral

Laos . . . . UCC Sept. 16, 1955 Qatar . . . None
Lebanon . . UCC Oct. 17, 1959 Romania . Bilateral
Lesotho . . Unclear Rwanda . . Unclear
Liberia . . . UCC July 27, 1956 San Marino Nonc
Libya . . . Unclear Saudi Arabia None
Liechtenstein UCC Jan. 22, 1959 Senegal . . Unclear
Luxembourg UCC Oct. 15, 1955; Bilateral Sierra Leone Unclear
Madagascar 3 Unclear Singapore . . . . . . Unclear
Malawi . . . UCC Oct. 26, 1965 Somalia . . . . . . . Unclear
Malaysia . . Unclear South Africa . . . . . Bilatcral
Maldives . . Unclear Soviet Union . . . . None
Mali . . . . Unclear Spain . . . . . . . . UCC Sept. 16, 1955; Bilateral
Malta .. . UCC Nov. 19, 1968 Sri Lanka (Ceylon) . . U~lclear
Mauritania . Unclear Sudan . . . . . . . Unclear
Mauritius 4 . UCC Mar. 12, 1968 Swaziland . . . . . . Unclear
Mexico . . . UCC May 12, 1957; BAC; Sweden . . . . . . . UCC July 1, 1961; Bilateral
Bilateral Switzerland . . . . . UCC Mar. 30, 1956; Bilateral
Monaco . . . . . . UCC Sept. 16, 1955; Bilateral Syria . . . . . . . . Unclear
Morocco . . . . . . UCC May 8,1972 Tanzania . . . . . . Unclear
Nauru . . . . . . . Unclear Thailand . . . . . . Bilateral
Nepal . . . . . . . None Togo . . . . . . . . Unclear
Netherlands . . . . . UCC June 22, 1967; Bilateral Tonga . , . . . . . None
N e w Zealand . . . . IJCC Sept. 11, 1964; Bilateral Trinidad and Tobago . Unclear
Nicaragua . . . . . . UCC Aug. 16, 1961 ; BAC Tunisia . . . . . . . UCC June 19, 1969
Niger . . . . . . . Unclear Turkey . . . . . . . None
Nigeria . . . . . . . UCC Feb. 14, 1962 Uganda . . . . . . . Unclcar
Norway . . . . . . UCC Jan. 23, 1963; Bilateral United Arab Emirates . None
United Kingdom . . . UCC Sept. 27, 1957; Bilateral
Oman . . . . . . . None
Upper Volta . . . . . Unclcar
Pakistan . . . . . . UCC Sept. 16, 1955
Uruguay ...... BAC
Panama ...... UCC Oct. 17, 1962; BAC Venezuela . . . . . . UCC Sept. 30, 1966
Paraguay . . . . . . UCC Mar. 11, 1962; BAC Vietnam . . . . . . Unclear
Peru . . . . . . . . UCC Oct. 16,1963; BAC Western Samoa . . . . Unclear
Philippines . . . . . Bilateral; UCC status undeter- Yemen (Aden) . . . . Unclear
mined by UNESCO (Copy- Yemen (San'r) . . . . None
right Office considers that Yugoslavia ..... UCC May 11,1966
UCC relations do not exist.) Zaire . . . . . . . . Unclear
Poland . . . . . . . Bilateral Zambia . . . . . . . UCC June 1, I965

1 . Cambodia
is also known as the Khmer Republic.
On Decen~ber 13, 1971, UNESCO was notified by the Government of Fiji that it considers itself bound by t h e
2
UCC from October 10, 1970, its datc of independence.
3 Madagascar is also known as the Malagasy Republic.
4 011August 20, 1970, UNESCO was notified by the Government of Mauritius that it considers itself bound by t h e
UCC from March 12, 1968, its date of indcpendence.
 REPORT 01: THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS. 1972

Registratiotzs by Subject Matter Class. Fiscal Years 1968-72

Class Subject matter of copyright 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

Books (including pamphlets. leaflets. etc.) . . . .

Periodicals (issues) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(BB) Contributions to newspapers and
periodicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lectures. sermons. addresses . . . . . . . . .
Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions . . .
Musical cornpositions . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maps ...................
Works of art. models. or designs . . . . . . . .
Reproductions of works of art . . . . . . . . .
Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or
technical character . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prints and pictorial illustrations . . . . . . . .
(KK) Commercial prints and labels . . . . .
Motion-picture photoplays . . . . . . . . . .
Motion pictures not photoplays . . . . . . . .
Sound recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Renewals of all classcs . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303. 451 301. 258 316.466 329. 696 344. 574

Number of Articles Deposited. Fiscal Years 1 Y 68-72

Class Subject matter of copy right 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

Books (including pamphlets. leaflets. etc.) . . . .

Periodicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(BB) Contributions to newspapers and
periodicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lectures. sermons. addresses . . . . . . . . .
Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions . . .
Musical compositions . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Works of art. models. or designs . . . . . . . .
Reproductions of works of art . . . . . . . . .
Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or
tecl~nicalcharacter . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prints and pictorial illustrations . . . . . . . .
(KK) Commercial prints and labels . . . . .
Motion-picture photoplays . . . . . . . . . .
Motion pictures not photoplays . . . . . . . .
Sound recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485. 416 476.010 505. 995 530. 933 551.069

16 RtPOK1' OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS I972 .
Number of Articles Transferred to Other Departments o f lhe Library oj Congress 1
. .
Class Suhject mattcr of articlec transferred 1968 1969 1970 1371 1972

Rooks (including pamphlets. leaflets. etc.) . . . .

Periodicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(BB) Contributions to newspapers and
periodicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lectures. sermons. addresses . . . . . . . . .
Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions . . .
Musical compositions . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Works of art. models. or designs . . . . . . . .
Reproductions of works of art . . . . . . . . .
Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or
technical cliaracter . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Photographs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prints and pictorial illustrations . . . . . . . .
(KK)Commercial prints and labels . . . . .
Motion-picture photoplays . . . . . . . . . .
Motion pictures not photoplays . . . . . . . .
Sound recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 31 1. 635

1 Extra copies received with deposits and gift copies arc included in these figures. For some categories. the number
of articles transferred may therefore exceed the number of articles deposited as shown in the preceding chart .
2 Of this total. 33. 000 copies were transferred to the Exchange and Gift Division for use in its programs .
3 Adjusted figure .

Gross Cash Receipts. Fees. and Registrations. Fiscal Year.s 1968-72

Increase or
Gross receipts Fees earned Registrations decrease in
registrations

1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.940.758.60 $1.865.488.82 303.451 +9.045

1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.011.372.76 1.879. 83 1.30 301. 258 .2. 193
1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.049.308.99 1.956.44 1.37 316.466 +15. 208
1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.089.620.19 2.045.457.52 029.696 .+I 3. 230
1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.313.638.14 2.177.064.86 344. 574 +14. 878
--
Total . . . . . . . . . . 10.404.698.68 9.924.283.87 1.595.445
 REPORT OF THE REGISTER O F COPYRIGHTS. 1972

Su rnmary of Copyright Business

Balance on hand July I . 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 513.047.07

.
Gross receipt\ July 1. 1971 to June 30. 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.313.638.14

Total to be accounted for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.826.685.21

Refunded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 100.6 I 7.5 1

Checks returned unpaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 97 1.44
Deposited as earned fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.180.838.22
Balance carried over July 1. 1972
Fees earned in June 1972 but not deposited until
July 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 76.529.82
Unfinished business balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.248.33
Deposit accounts balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265.615.25
Card service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.864.64

Registrations Fees earned

Published domestic works at $6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220. 715 $1.324.290.00

Published foreign works at $6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 565 27.390.00
Unpublished works at $6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.032 510.192.00
Renewals at $4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23. 239 92.956.00

Total registrations for fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333.55 1 1.954.828.00

Registrations made under provisions of law permitting registration without payment of
fee for certain works of foreign origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.022
Registrations made under Standard Reference Data Act. P.L. 90-396 (15 U.S.C.$290).
for certain publications of U.S.Government agencies for which fee has been waived 1

Total registrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344. 574

Fees for recording assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.053.50

Fees for indexing assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.535.50
Fees for recording notices of l i e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,136.00
Fees for recording notices of intention to use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.727.50
Fees for certified documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.402.00
Fees for searches made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.095.00
Card Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.287.36

Total fees exclusive of rcgistrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222.236.86

Total fees earned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.177.064.86

--